The U.S. Supreme Court is looking at legal appeals related to laws passed in New Jersey and Maryland to encourage the development of home-grown power plants, which in both cases turned into approvals for gas-fired power projects.
Said NRG Energy (NYSE: NRG), which competes in the affected markets within the PJM Interconnection region, in its May 8 quarterly Form 10-Q report: “The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities and the Maryland Public Service Commission awarded long-term power purchase contracts to generation developers to encourage the construction of new generation capacity in the respective states. The constitutionality of the long-term contracts was challenged and the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (in an October 25, 2013, decision) and the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (in an October 24, 2013, decision) found that the respective contracts violated the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and were preempted.”
NRG added: “On June 30, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the Maryland District Court’s decision. On September 11, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the New Jersey District Court’s decision. Various parties filed petitions for a writ of certiorari seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of both cases. On March 23, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court requested the views of the U.S. Solicitor General. The outcome of this litigation and the validity of the contracts may affect future capacity prices in PJM.”
Said Exelon (NYSE: EXC), a vigorous opponent of these two state programs, in its April 29 Form 10-Q: “Various states have attempted to implement or propose legislation, regulations or other policies to subsidize new generation development which may result in artificially depressed wholesale energy and capacity prices. For example, the New Jersey legislature enacted in to law in January 2011, the Long Term Capacity Pilot Program Act (LCAPP). LCAPP provides eligible generators with 15-year fixed contracts for the sale of capacity in the PJM capacity market. Under LCAPP, the local utilities in New Jersey are required to pay (or receive) the difference between the price eligible generators receive in the capacity market and the price guaranteed under the 15-year contract. New Jersey ultimately selected three proposals to participate in LCAPP and build new generation in the state. In addition, on April 12, 2012, the MDPSC issued an order directing the Maryland electric utilities to enter into a 20-year contract for differences (CfD) with CPV Maryland, LLC (CPV), under which CPV will construct an approximately 700 MW combined cycle gas turbine in Waldorf, Maryland, that it projected will be in commercial operation by June 1, 2015. CPV has subsequently sought to extend that date. The CfD mandated that utilities [including Exelon’s Baltimore Gas & Electric subsidiary] pay (or receive) the difference between CPV’s contract price and the revenues it receives for capacity and energy from clearing the unit in the PJM capacity market.
“Exelon and others have challenged the constitutionality and other aspects of the New Jersey legislation and the actions taken by the MDPSC in state and federal courts. Ultimately, the Exelon parties prevailed in obtaining orders from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit effectively undoing the actions taken by the New Jersey legislature and the MDPSC, respectively. The matter has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and while the Court of Appeals decisions are helpful, there remains risk the Supreme Court will overrule the lower Courts.
“As required under their contracts, generator developers who were selected in the New Jersey and Maryland programs (including CPV) offered and cleared in PJM’s capacity market auctions held in May 2012, 2013, and 2014. In addition, CPV has announced its intention to move forward with construction of its New Jersey and Maryland plants, with or without the challenged state subsidy. Nonetheless to the extent that the state-required customer subsidies are included under their respective contracts, Exelon believes that these projects may have artificially suppressed capacity prices in PJM in these auctions and may continue to do so in future auctions to the detriment of Exelon’s market driven position. While the court decisions in New Jersey and Maryland are positive developments, continuation of these state efforts, if successful and unabated by an effective minimum offer price rule (MOPR) for future capacity auctions, could continue to result in artificially depressed wholesale capacity and/or energy prices. Other states could seek to establish programs, which could substantially impact Exelon’s market driven position and could have a significant effect on Exelon’s financial results of operations, financial position and cash flows. Exelon continues to monitor developments and participate in stakeholder and other processes to ensure that similar state subsidies are not developed. In addition, Exelon remains active in advocating for competitive markets, while opposing policies that require taxpayers and/ or consumers to subsidize or give preferential treatment to specific generation providers or technologies, or that would threaten the reliability and value of the integrated electricity grid.”